CM Operation Flashpoint 3 announced | "Oops, they're doing it again..."

[PuFu 4600]

I wasn't comparing ArmA II to those games, but making a point that what makes ArmA, ArmA, isn't those features. Otherwise all other games would be ArmA as well ... If BIS removed something like PvP or added an any-time healing aspect, where anyone could heal themselves. Would the game suddenly change from being ArmA?

The answer is No, it's the gameplay that makes ArmA, the extra features just help the game last longer and keep it enjoyable. But they aren't what make it enjoyable.

Read max's reply. To that one, i only wanna add is the ability to modify the game to my own liking. If tomorrow BIS decides to make everyone able to heal themselves, the next day someone will make a mod to remove it..

PR/FH2 are now trialing 128 player servers, with good results so I hear...

The 121 PvP game i took part in was almost 3 years back, with ArmA1. From trial to stable environment is long way...

Just because it has the name OFP? Is there really any other reason?

DR was crap? That's your opinion, and I will ask this. What made it so crap to you?

I mean, where can i start (the following are not in a certain order but what i can think of DR as i type):

1. console type controls (no lean).

2. no dedicated server which meant the MP was utterly bolocks (coop and pvp alike) - lag, connection issues etc

3. more pirates than people who actually bought the game (really, that is the respect they had about their own game and about the people who actually paid them)

4. no JIP - meant most of the time you were searching for a server, and when you found one, you were endlessly waiting for it to fill

5. useless AI (both friendly and enemy)

6. subpar physics, especially for air vehicles, which were a really bad joke

7. stupid story, stupid conversation, too many semper fi and oscar mike sort of bullshit (do they really think everyone who plays a game involving a gun is retard enough to have a boner each time they see/hear an 3d model on their screen yelling huah..?)

8. no immersion - i never related to any of the characters in the game, watsoever

9. annoying GFX effects (not that i care too much about computer games gfx per se, as long as it doesn't push the boundaries of common sense and it gets annoying - bloom, post process effects, lens correction etc)

10. no re-playability - due to a lot of things, mainly beeing the timer. No matter they way you were going, the same thing happened: the AI would not so randomly spawn around you, which meant that, from a tactical pov, it was null.

that is 10 i wrote in under 1 minute...need i say more?

[b0b 10]

....,

that is 10 i wrote in under 1 minute...need i say more?

Let me add a few that peeved me about it.

Putting aside the whole BiS and CM flashpoint name thing etc...,

- Lack of support, major fuckyou to customers due to inept handling.

Mulitplayer retardedness

- No JIP

- P2p pvp ugghh

- Draw distance bugs under thermal scope means you could shoot through walls.

- Inane mouse control porting. This vexed me as they couldnt be bothered to put decent mouse control when porting xbox controller commands.

- LOD.., ugghhh

- Shoebox shooter

- Invincible & retarded AI in MP

- No serial key protection

- crap limited editor

- your a bullet sponge

- no particle interactions ( light/smoke/colour etc)

- lol@hardcore mode.., can someone tell me what was hardcore about it? i missed something obviously.

Single player

.., just Meh nothing to wh00p about.

COOP

- Fun for a couple of missions, if you ignore all of the above bugs/limitations et al, got boring REAL fast.

I could go on and on too.., but those are the ones that p'd me off the most. Oh that and codies using the ofp name for a cod wannabe clone....,

I think the only thing that impressed me in DR for about 20 seconds was the SMAW reload animation.., thats it really.

need i go on? probably not.

[sas troop 0]

One of IC-ArmA battles in participated in had 131 players or something like this on the server. There were 160 slot available and - as far as I know- few battles were close to that number.

RR involves 4 player coop only? Answer is: LOL

There is NO other game involving as great number of coop possibilities (PvP also, but focus on coop) than any other game. The biggest coop I was in was platoon sized, circa 33-34 players.

[Ulysses 10]

Maybe they're setting the bar low enough they can straddle it. :)

[PuFu 4600]

NO Demo for the turd is confirmed

Why would one wanna try something before he buys it? Especially when it is might loose sales rather than gather them?

Plus, why bother creating a demo for a game that will most likely have no post-release support and its lifespan will most likely even less that its previous defunct FPDR (which had a editor of sort) and was kept on life support single-handed by only one guy (who's name i eludes me at the moment)

Edited March 24, 2011 by PuFu

[ben_s 11]

I mean, where can i start (the following are not in a certain order but what i can think of DR as i type):

1. console type controls (no lean).

2. no dedicated server which meant the MP was utterly bolocks (coop and pvp alike) - lag, connection issues etc

3. more pirates than people who actually bought the game (really, that is the respect they had about their own game and about the people who actually paid them)

4. no JIP - meant most of the time you were searching for a server, and when you found one, you were endlessly waiting for it to fill

5. useless AI (both friendly and enemy)

6. subpar physics, especially for air vehicles, which were a really bad joke

7. stupid story, stupid conversation, too many semper fi and oscar mike sort of bullshit (do they really think everyone who plays a game involving a gun is retard enough to have a boner each time they see/hear an 3d model on their screen yelling huah..?)

8. no immersion - i never related to any of the characters in the game, watsoever

9. annoying GFX effects (not that i care too much about computer games gfx per se, as long as it doesn't push the boundaries of common sense and it gets annoying - bloom, post process effects, lens correction etc)

10. no re-playability - due to a lot of things, mainly beeing the timer. No matter they way you were going, the same thing happened: the AI would not so randomly spawn around you, which meant that, from a tactical pov, it was null.

that is 10 i wrote in under 1 minute...need i say more?

Let me add a few that peeved me about it.

Putting aside the whole BiS and CM flashpoint name thing etc...,

- Lack of support, major fuckyou to customers due to inept handling.

Mulitplayer retardedness

- No JIP

- P2p pvp ugghh

- Draw distance bugs under thermal scope means you could shoot through walls.

- Inane mouse control porting. This vexed me as they couldnt be bothered to put decent mouse control when porting xbox controller commands.

- LOD.., ugghhh

- Shoebox shooter

- Invincible & retarded AI in MP

- No serial key protection

- crap limited editor

- your a bullet sponge

- no particle interactions ( light/smoke/colour etc)

- lol@hardcore mode.., can someone tell me what was hardcore about it? i missed something obviously.

Single player

.., just Meh nothing to wh00p about.

COOP

- Fun for a couple of missions, if you ignore all of the above bugs/limitations et al, got boring REAL fast.

I could go on and on too.., but those are the ones that p'd me off the most. Oh that and codies using the ofp name for a cod wannabe clone....,

I think the only thing that impressed me in DR for about 20 seconds was the SMAW reload animation.., thats it really.

need i go on? probably not.

You two are the first to really list reasons, and they're all valid.

Although, a few points I wanna pick out and debunk.

- crap limited editor

- your a bullet sponge

- useless AI (both friendly and enemy)

Limited editor? please elaborate on whats 'limited' about the editor itself, and not just the game.

A bullet sponge? I've never experienced being hit more than twice without dying. But then again, I've never played DR without Templar's dispersion system hacks.

Useless AI? It depends on what you mean by useless. Please elaborate on this point.

[maddogx 13]

Personal opinions aside, they promised an awesome war sim (or shooter, whatever), delivered something totally mediocre instead and cut support for it after one patch that did more harm than good. No more needs to be said.

[b0b 10]

... Please elaborate on this point.

Editor was limited yes.., import others vehicles.guns, etc etc etc without cm having a cow over breaking their encryption or whatever it was? again i could go on and on about it. Details have been mentioned yet still you insist nit picking it to death one by one..*raps on Ben's head* cmon man itll sink in sometime im sure.

AI - TBH Ben its been gone over a million times by others.., didnt you retain what they said too? Youve only gotta watch any youtube vid of DR's AI in performance and you know right away what im talking about.

Personal opinions aside, they promised an awesome war sim (or shooter, whatever), delivered something totally mediocre instead and cut support for it after one patch that did more harm than good. No more needs to be said.

This TBQFBH, nuff said.

[PuFu 4600]

Useless AI? It depends on what you mean by useless. Please elaborate on this point.

Enemy: As in unable to perform some of the basic tasks, such as shoot you in the face when they have the chance (that is based on my experience with the coop missions i have got to play as well as the campaign).

Friendly: Limited player control over them. Too often they were crossing my firelane and getting themselves killed. Worth mentioning that after trying to work with them, i decided to just let them follow me: i think at the end of the (boring) campaign, neither of them got an enemy shoot down (more like spending bullets for the sake of it.) That goes even for close ranges

[[frl]myke 15]

The war is over, mission accomplished. Sion Lenton officially declares BIS as winner in the category "Best military Simulation".

Source: Click (in german)

In a interview with a english games website, Sion Lenton (Creative Director at Codemasters) explained why Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising has nothing in common with the almost 10 year old original.

Codemasters removed a lot of features in the Military shooter "OFP: DR" which were present in the original - away from simulation, closer to action. Also the upcoming Red River will not go back to the roots. Sion Lenton, Creative Director, explained the reasons for this decision.

Codemasters is part of the Entertainment Industry and Entertainment should be fun at first. A classical Milsim wouldn't fit into this criteria. "They are immersive but not fun." Another reason to turn away from simulation was also the targetted release for consoles, the backgrounds altough were more located in economic reasons.

The Creative Director stated that fans of Milsims do have a alternative: ArmA from Bohemia Interactive. Bohemia Interactive already developed the original OFP and kept the Milsim style. "The Team makes great work and i wish them good luck."

Sion Lenton says that Operation Flashpoint shouldn't be taken as "Simulation" any longer, but there are plans to develop the franchise further. The Codemasters-employee could imagine a Operation Flashpoint Realtime Strategy. Kreative immobility isn't an option: "You have to move, you can't do the same thing over and over again."

Quelle: pcgamer.com

Please take note that the translation could have some inaccuracies as my english isn't good enough for professional translations.

[Zipper5 74]

Myke;1881984']The war is over' date=' mission accomplished. Sion Lenton officially declares BIS as winner in the category "Best military Simulation".[/quote']

Again with the "simulations aren't fun" argument. Sure, it's not fun that I'm feeling when I play Arma 2. Not at all. Nevertheless, they're still not making OFP a simulation, and that's what OFP is.

Actually, I fail to see what this really achieved outside of being PR for BIS, which is always nice. :p

[[frl]myke 15]

@Zipper5

Sorry, no time for a long response. I'm about to have no fun for 2 hours, together with some mates that really like to not having fun. :D

[SteveJA 12]

"They are immersive but not fun."

Hahaha! this really makes me lol!

Sure if he had said most/the many/console plebs/majority/money throwers, dont enjoy Milsim then that would make some sort of sence.

[max power 21]

Again with the "simulations aren't fun" argument. Sure, it's not fun that I'm feeling when I play Arma 2. Not at all. Nevertheless, they're still not making OFP a simulation, and that's what OFP is.

Actually, I fail to see what this really achieved outside of being PR for BIS, which is always nice. :p

It really looks like that article is based on the same statement he issued before.

[Zipper5 74]

Most likely, yes.

[ben_s 11]

Editor was limited yes.., import others vehicles.guns, etc etc etc without cm having a cow over breaking their encryption or whatever it was? again i could go on and on about it. Details have been mentioned yet still you insist nit picking it to death one by one..*raps on Ben's head* cmon man itll sink in sometime im sure.

AI - TBH Ben its been gone over a million times by others.., didnt you retain what they said too? Youve only gotta watch any youtube vid of DR's AI in performance and you know right away what im talking about.

This TBQFBH, nuff said.

That wasn't the editor, it was the game not allowing you to do such things. At least, not easily. Unlike ArmA's more-simple Addon system.

- For AI, see my response to Pufu below.

Enemy: As in unable to perform some of the basic tasks, such as shoot you in the face when they have the chance (that is based on my experience with the coop missions i have got to play as well as the campaign).

Friendly: Limited player control over them. Too often they were crossing my firelane and getting themselves killed. Worth mentioning that after trying to work with them, i decided to just let them follow me: i think at the end of the (boring) campaign, neither of them got an enemy shoot down (more like spending bullets for the sake of it.) That goes even for close ranges

I agree wtih friendlies, they were a sack of bricks. Especially those in your fireteam.

As for enemy? Not being able to hit you? You're kidding right. I was playing with Templars latest AI mod and I was getting nailed by the AI ... not even on veteren AI.

CQB goes from being a laugh, to being a no-go area unless you want your ass kicked. I suggest downloading it, and replaying DR just once more on any mission with it on. And rejudge the AI.

Try a few community missions, too. Some are great fun, and really add to the replayability.

[Zipper5 74]

Everyone judges and ridicules Arma 2 on its stock AI, but we're supposed to judge DR's AI only after it has been modded? :p

I've never tried any mods for DR, I'm sure the same goes for many of those here who played it. The game sucked in its vanilla state, something it doesn't share with Arma 2, and that's at least how I judge it, just like I judge Arma 2. In fact, I play vanilla Arma 2 much more than modded, although that is largely because most of my time is spent mission making and testing these days.

[max power 21]

Judging DR based on community made alterations, it still sucks because the modability of it is still so much less than the original. I think this argument is also a bit invalid. People have legitimate criticisms of aspects of ArmA's AI. Do you think it's right to say, "Your criticism about its engagement range is poppycock because Zues AI allows for a further range (I don't actually know what it does, I've never played with it)!"? Or, even further on that line of thinking, "ArmA 1's tank combat was not severely lacking from a tank sim point of view because NonWonderDog made a tank FCS". The logic doesn't make sense.

[PuFu 4600]

I agree wtih friendlies, they were a sack of bricks. Especially those in your fireteam.

As for enemy? Not being able to hit you? You're kidding right. I was playing with Templars latest AI mod and I was getting nailed by the AI ... not even on veteren AI.

There is no such thing as MOD when it comes to DR. Those are...hacks. Plus, if i am to judge a game by its sdk, then DR would have 0 points for that one, since there isn't any. But i am not. We are talking about the game as it was released by CM, and that is like a sack of turd in terms of AI capability (and not limited to those). The AI behaves exactly the way i described it

CQB goes from being a laugh, to being a no-go area unless you want your ass kicked. I suggest downloading it, and replaying DR just once more on any mission with it on. And rejudge the AI.

Try a few community missions, too. Some are great fun, and really add to the replayability.

Sorry (in fact i am not), i can't. The game was my brother who bought it because he remember he and I used to play OFP and thought it was the follow up. That is the only reason i have played it, since i wouldn't have bought it. He trade that for something else, left for dead 1 irc, in which case it was a good pick on his part;)

BTW ben, i really start to think you don't really own A2...hence i see no reason why you are so freaking defending CM, in such a mind boggling and blindfolded way. Tell me, do you really think about buying RR (or well, ask your parents to?)

Edited March 24, 2011 by PuFu

[ben_s 11]

Everyone judges and ridicules Arma 2 on its stock AI, but we're supposed to judge DR's AI only after it has been modded? :p

I've never tried any mods for DR, I'm sure the same goes for many of those here who played it. The game sucked in its vanilla state, something it doesn't share with Arma 2, and that's at least how I judge it, just like I judge Arma 2. In fact, I play vanilla Arma 2 much more than modded, although that is largely because most of my time is spent mission making and testing these days.

Well, If someone was to come to the BIS forums, and say the AI sucks. There would be alot of replies, telling the said person how the AI does things, how they're better at larger platoon sized tactics and to go try some mods.

Which is exacly what I've done here, i've given you a link to a well known, well respected AI mod for DR, and you can try it, or not.

Judging DR based on community made alterations, it still sucks because the modability of it is still so much less than the original. I think this argument is also a bit invalid. People have legitimate criticisms of aspects of ArmA's AI. Do you think it's right to say, "Your criticism about its engagement range is poppycock because Zues AI allows for a further range (I don't actually know what it does, I've never played with it)!"? Or, even further on that line of thinking, "ArmA 1's tank combat was not severely lacking from a tank sim point of view because NonWonderDog made a tank FCS". The logic doesn't make sense.

No it doesn't, but I didn't say it wasn't lacking, I was just pointing that a mod was made, and it did fix alot of problems. And was just giving people the option to go back, and try it again. With alot of the said problems they had with DR; fixed.

I see no problematic logic behind that.

[Tyrokiller 10]

BTW ben, i really start to think you don't really own A2

He does own ARMA2 I can assure you of that, to be honest Ben himself is somewhat mainstream rather than 'Fanboy' when it comes to DR if his comments here are to be judged by; also Dragons Rising was released as a "Tactical Shooter" not a military simulator like people here state. (Going by release terminology not during development)

[Richey79 10]

http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/homefront/1157240p1.html

4/5 of this review could have been written about RR.

I really find it hard to credit that anyone would still be prepared to argue that DR's clumsy system of needing to attribute a group of AI as an 'entity' and then set up scripted warning zones for the artificial intelligence to actually react to anything represents an example of efficient game design.

Likewise, this BS argument that the editor can be evaluated separately from the game itself: it would be similar to commenting that, 'yes, Cryostasis was a shit game, but its options menu for adjusting graphical settings was top notch.'

Edited March 24, 2011 by Richey79

[CommanderYuri 10]

It's clearly not efficient, indeed it was more of a dissapointment. I awaited something really massive from the creators, a worthy successor and my ( everyones ) expectations as old OFP vet and fan were completly disregarded, set asade or just completly ignored. Adding somewhat of "realistic physics", dynamic light, a bit of better texture and graphic and a very very short partially boring but from the main idea excellently thoughtful but not virtualy implemented campaign, does not make it an as thrilling military simulation as OFP. It's just way far behind.

[max power 21]

Enemy: As in unable to perform some of the basic tasks, such as shoot you in the face when they have the chance (that is based on my experience with the coop missions i have got to play as well as the campaign).

As for enemy? Not being able to hit you? You're kidding right. I was playing with Templars latest AI mod and I was getting nailed by the AI ... not even on veteren AI.

Judging DR based on community made alterations, it still sucks because the modability of it is still so much less than the original. I think this argument is also a bit invalid. People have legitimate criticisms of aspects of ArmA's AI. Do you think it's right to say, "Your criticism about its engagement range is poppycock because Zues AI allows for a further range (I don't actually know what it does, I've never played with it)!"? Or, even further on that line of thinking, "ArmA 1's tank combat was not severely lacking from a tank sim point of view because NonWonderDog made a tank FCS". The logic doesn't make sense.

No it doesn't, but I didn't say it wasn't lacking, I was just pointing that a mod was made, and it did fix alot of problems. And was just giving people the option to go back, and try it again. With alot of the said problems they had with DR; fixed.

I see no problematic logic behind that.

Are you on drugs?

[ben_s 11]

http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/homefront/1157240p1.html

4/5 of this review could have been written about RR.

I really find it hard to credit that anyone would still be prepared to argue that DR's clumsy system of needing to attribute a group of AI as an 'entity' and then set up scripted warning zones for the artificial intelligence to actually react to anything represents an example of efficient game design.

You mean, echeloning AI? That actually makes sense if you think about it ... And what do you mean by scripted warning zones?

About echeloning: DR's AI uses different tactics to whether they're solo, in a fireteam, in a squad or in a platoon. And as you go up, all attached AI to the echelon, fights with different tactics. However, making the AI as dumb as bricks without echeloning. Was stupid.

To show the echelon system, setup 4 men. And you, a couple hundred meters forward. And play, then put all 4 men into an echelon and play again. Then place each man into his own echelon, and attach those echelon to another empty echelon (so the game counts each single AI as a 4 man fireteam), and then attach each echelon attached to an AI to another echelon, and then attach to the upper echelon again. So each AI has 3 levels of echeloning. Making the AI run as if each man was a whole squad of units, or 4 fireteams.

Give them an assault order before you play, or something. And see how they differ in tactics. Credits go to Templar for that.

Likewise, this BS argument that the editor can be evaluated separately from the game itself: it would be similar to commenting that, 'yes, Cryostasis was a shit game, but its options menu for adjusting graphical settings was top notch.'

Fair points, I was just making a point back there. To show that it wasn't the actual editor people were comparing, but rather, the game, and just throwing in the word "editor" to add more arguements onto ArmA II - even though they meant nothing.